William T. Taff vs. William B. Milton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE WILLIAM T. TAFF v. WILLIAM B. MILTON Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County No. 27347(B) R. Jerry Beck, Judge No. E1999-01174-COA-R3-CV - Decided May 25, 2000 T his is a suit by one co-guarantor of a note ag ainst another co-guarantor to collect onehalf of the am ount paid to retire the indebtedness guaranteed. A fter a full ev identiary hearing the T rial C ourt found in fav or of the Plaintiff . W e affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court affirmed GODDARD, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANKS and SWINEY, JJ., joined. Carl W. Eilers of Kingsport, Tennessee, and Thomas F. Bloom of Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William B. Milton Robert Payne Cave of Greeneville, Tennessee, for the appellee, William T. Taff OPINION In this suit, the Plaintiff , W illiam T . Taf f, sues the Def endant, W illiam B . M ilton, to recov er one-half of the am ount M r. T aff paid to retire a note which w as guaranteed by both M r. T aff and M r. M ilton. A fter a full ev identiary hearing the T rial C ourt entered a memorandum opinion in fav or of M r. T aff , resulting in this appeal, wherein M r. M ilton raises the follow ing issues: I. W hether Def endant M ilton agreed, either orally or in writing, to assum e onehalf of the liability for the F ellers note. II. W he th er P la in ti f f T af f s re co v ery can b e s us ta in ed un de r th e equ it ab le th eo ry of contribution. In non-jury cases, under R ule 13 of the T ennessee R ules of A ppellate Procedure, the findings of fact, although not conclusions of law, are presumed to be correct unless the ev idence preponderates otherwise. T he T rial C ourt filed an excellent and w ell-reasoned opinion, w hich is attached hereto as A ppendix A . W e find that the ev idence does not preponderate against the Trial C ourt s fi ndin gs of fa ct an d tha t the conc lusi ons o f l aw he ap plie d the reto w ere approp riate. W e accordingly adopt his memorandum opinion as the opinion of this C ourt. B efore concluding, we observe that if M r. M ilton is correct in his assertion that he has no liability under the facts of this case to M r. T aff , we w onder if he w ould take the same position had the holder of the note, or ev en M r. T aff , if he had purchased rather than paid the note, sued M r. M ilton for the entire balance owed. W e think not. F or the foregoing reasons the judgm ent of the T rial C ourt is aff irmed and the cause remanded for collection of the judgm ent and costs below . C osts of appeal are adjudged against M r. M ilton and his surety. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
